Publishing 101Dos and don’ts of publishing in APS journals

Kim E. Barrett, Chair, APS Publications CommitteeMargaret Reich, APS Director of Publications and Executive EditorEditor Panel: Dennis Brown, AJP-Cell; Alberto Nasjletti, AJP-Heart

Preparing your work for publication in APS journals

Kim E. Barrett

Chair, Publications Committee

Preparing your work for publication

The overall process Issues to consider before you start to write

Authorship Journal

Elements of a journal article The review/revision process Tips to enhance your chances of acceptance

Why is publication so important?

No publication, no projectYour results must be available for others, or it

is as if they don’t exist No publication, no promotion

Yardstick of productivity No publication, no funding

What have you done for me lately?

Publishing your work is vital for success

Completion of research

Preparation of manuscript

Submission of manuscript

Assignment and review

Decision

Rejection Revision

Acceptance

Resubmission

Re-review

PUBLICATION!

Rejection

Adapted from a figure by Dale Benos

Authorship

Decide on authors, and their order, as early as possiblePreferably before even starting the project

Authors should include only those who have made a substantive intellectual contribution to the project reported, and can defend the data and conclusions publicly

Criteria for authorship Generate at least part of the intellectual

contentConception or design of the workData analysis and interpretation

Draft, critically review, or revise the intellectual content

Approve the final version to be submitted

All three criteria should be satisfied

Who’s an author?

The student who did the experiments and wrote the first draft of the manuscript?

The technician who measured cytokine levels in 150 samples?

The PI who had the idea in the first place, guided the student, and reviewed the manuscript?

The department chair who provided space and resources for the study, dropped by the lab occasionally to chat, but knew little or nothing about the experiments?

Choosing the right journal

Target audience“Who would be interested in reading this

paper?” Import and significance of the findings

Seek input from colleagues Decide on the journal before beginning to

write

Essential elements of a manuscript

Based on what was known and unknown, why did you do the study? Introduction

How did you do the study? Methods

What did you find? Results

What does it mean in the context of the existing body of knowledge? Discussion

Tips for success Know the journal, its editor, and why you

submitted your paper there Read the instructions Avoid careless spelling, grammar, formatting

mistakes Make sure references are appropriate and

accurate Remember who your reviewers might be!

Ensure appropriate file format, including figures Is the on-line version the one you want the reviewers

to see? Confirm receipt

The revision process

If your paper is returned for revision, you are in good company

It’s OK to get mad, but don’t act on it! Try to understand what the reviewers are really

saying If the reviewers did not understand your work, is it

because you didn’t present it clearly in the first place?

Look for clues from the editor (the final arbiter) as to the extent of revision needed

Responding to reviewers

Complete additional experiments if needed Address all comments in a point-by-point fashion

Resist the temptation to prepare an impassioned response to points with which you disagree

Stand firm (diplomatically) if that is truly the right thing to do

Sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for helping you to improve your work They have invested a lot of time, mostly on a

voluntary basis Ask a neutral colleague to review your response

Major reasons for rejection

Inappropriate for the journal Do your homework

Merely confirmatory/incremental Avoid LPU’s (least publishable units)

Describes poorly-designed or inconclusive studies Focus on your hypothesis

Poorly written Great science in an ugly package can still be rejected

Summary

Do the study with the paper in mind Assign authorship appropriately Chose the right journal Seek input from colleagues

See the wood as well as the trees Remember who the reviewers might be If unsure about ethics, ask!

Ethical pitfalls in scientific publishing

Kim E. BarrettMargaret ReichAlberto Nasjletti (Editor, AJP-Heart)Dennis Brown (Editor, AJP-Cell)

Ethical responsibilities of a scientist

Intellectual honesty Accurate assignment of credit Fairness in peer review Collegiality in scientific interactions Transparency in conflicts of interest Protection of human and animal subjects

Ethical issues at APS Ethical cases are increasing among submissions to APS

journals, and in the scientific literature overall Ignorance of appropriate standards Funding, promotions pressures?

APS takes ethical matters very seriously, and has developed clearly-stated policies Authors found to have violated these policies are subject to a

variety of actions, up to and including notification of their institution and/or sanctions for the most serious offenses

The Publications Committee recommends on the disposition of ethical issues to the Executive Cabinet of APS, with the APS Council serving as an appeals body if necessary

Our goal in this session is to provide you with information that should allow you to avoid ethical pitfalls

Common ethical issues (in order of prevalence at APS) Redundant publication Animal welfare concerns Authorship disputes Duplicate publication Human welfare concerns Data fabrication/falsification

Increasingly, includes inappropriate manipulation of figures Plagiarism Conflicts of interest Others (e.g., reviewer bias, submission irregularities)

Prior publication

APS defines this as: Data Extended verbatim text passages Tables or illustrations

Redundant publication

Definition Using text or data from

another paper/prior publication (usually your own) in a new paper

Also called auto- or self-plagiarism

How to avoid Do not include material

from a previous study in a new one, even for statistical analysis

Repeat control groups as needed

Human and animal welfare issues

Definition Treatment of

experimental subjects that does not conform with accepted standards and journal policy

How to avoid Obtain prospective

IRB/IACUC approval for the study protocol

Do not deviate from the protocol

Obtain approval for amendments as needed before altering the protocol

Authorship disputes

Definition Disputes arising from

the addition, deletion, or change in the order of authors

How to avoid Agree on authors and

their order before starting the study

Ensure all authors meet criteria for authorship

Sign publishers’ authorship forms

Duplicate publication

Definition Submission of or

publication of the same paper or substantial parts of a paper in more than one place

How to avoid Do not submit a paper

to more than one journal at a time

Wait until your paper is rejected before submitting elsewhere

Withdraw a paper if you decide not to re-submit after being invited to do so

Data fabrication/falsification

Definition Changing or making

up data in a manuscript

Intended to “improve” the results

Includes digital manipulation of images (blots, micrographs, etc.)

How to avoid Present the exact

results obtained Do not withhold data

that don’t fit your hypothesis

Don’t try to beautify images with Photoshop – any manipulations must apply to the whole image

Unacceptable figure manipulation

Improper editing Improper grouping Improper adjustment

Authors should not: Move Remove Introduce Obscure Enhance

any specific feature within a image. Images should appear as captured in the lab.

Improper editing

Improper grouping

Authors should not generate composite images, even if obtained in a single capture, unless dividing lines are inserted to make clear that the resulting image was not visible in the actual experiment

Improper adjustmentAuthors should not adjust contrast, color balance or brightness unless applied to the entire figures and the adjustment does not obscure, eliminate or misrepresent the originally-captured information. Adjustments should be disclosed in the figure legend.

Plagiarism

Definition Taking the work of

another Copying a figure,

table, or even wording from a published or unpublished paper without attribution

How to avoid Provide citation to the

work of others Obtain copyright

permission if needed Do not copy exact

wording from another source, even if referenced, unless in quotes

Conflicts of interest

Definition Real or perceived

conflict due to employment, consulting, or investment in entities with an interest in the outcome of the research

How to avoid Disclose all potential

conflicts to the Editor and within the manuscript

Reviewer issues

Reviewers can also engage in unethical behavior Bias Conflict of interest Misappropriation of privileged information

Reviewers are obligated to: Maintain confidentiality Inform the editor if circumstances preclude a

unbiased review or could represent even a perceived conflict

Provide fair and collegial assessments